Big Shakeup in Cheating Husband's Nanny Murder-for-Hire Case

In a stunning turn in the Brendan. Banfield double murder case, the husband. accused of allegedly catfishing a man to. his family home only to kill him and his. wife. The judge has ruled that the. recorded interview of his young. daughter, who was apparently in the home. at the time of the killings, cannot be. used in court. Why would such a key. piece of evidence be excluded? Well, today we're going to break down the. ruling, its legal basis, and what all. this means for the case heading into. trial. Welcome to Sidebar presented by. Law on Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

[Music]. Hey everybody, real quick. This is. another Law and Crime legal alert. If. you received Depropa birth control shots. and were later diagnosed with a brain or. spinal tumor called meningioma, you may. be eligible for a lawsuit. That's right. Morgan and Morgan is investigating. claims that patients were improperly. warned about this risk. It's free to. check, just takes a few minutes, and you. don't pay unless they win. So scan the. QR code on screen, click the link below, or go to forthepeople.com/lcdepo. to see if you qualify.

We talk all the time about key witnesses. in criminal cases, right? Are they. credible? Are they reliable? Should they. be allowed to testify? Should their. recorded interviews come in? Well, here's a question for you. What happens. when that key witness is a child? And. what happens when a prosecution's murder. case that may rely quite heavily or. strongly on the account of that child. and now the judge says no, that child's.

interview can't come in. The jury can't. hear it. Well, that is what we want to. focus on today in a follow-up to a story. that we previously covered here on. Sidebar. And I'm going to bring on an. expert criminal defense attorney in a. minute to try to understand this ruling. from the judge and the consequences. because it may not make sense to you. right off the bat why she did this. Because in the case of Brendan Banfield, who's charged with aggravated murder in. connection with the February 2023. killings of his wife Christine and a man. named Joseph Ryan out in H Hearnden,

Virginia. You would think having an. interview with Brendan and Christine's. young daughter, who officials say was in. the basement at the time of the killings. about what she thinks happened the day. her mom died. That would be huge. That. would be a huge piece of evidence, that. pre-recorded interview. But the judge is. not allowing it. The judge is not. allowing her interview with a forensic. examiner to come in. Why? That's what. we're going to discuss. Now, first, let. me briefly get you caught up to speed on.

this very twisted story. So, Brendan. Banfield worked as an IRS criminal. investigative agent. He joined the. agency in 2009, had worked in the. criminal investigations division for. four years. This is according to an. agency spokesperson. February 24th, 2023, 37-year-old Christine was found in. the family home with multiple stab. wounds, and alongside her was. 39-year-old Joseph, who was apparently. shot to death. Joseph was pronounced. dead at the scene. Christine died at the.

hospital. Now, Banfield apparently. initially told dispatchers that Joseph. broke into the family home, killed. Christine, and that he shot him in. self-defense. Actually, the family's. 24year-old Opair, Juliana Perez Magahaz. confirmed she helped shoot Ryan, too. during this alleged attack. So, talking. about different weapons being used here. But after a sevenmonth investigation, Mlhees was arrested and charged with.

seconddegree murder and a firearms. offense. And then the following year, a. grand jury indicted Banfield on four. counts of aggravated murder and a. firearms offense for the killings. And. authorities alleged that the two were. having an affair and hatched essentially. a catfishing plan to kill Christine by. luring Joseph, this random guy, through. a sex website to the family home. Now, there's a little bit of a dispute about. the catfishing element. We're going to. get to that, but I want to get into all.

of this, including that Malgo Hayes. pleaded guilty last year. Okay? But I. want to circle back to this question on. why this young daughter, right, key. witness, her forensic interview, which. was recorded on the day of the killings, why that's not allowed into trial, why. that's not allowed into evidence. And. again, authorities say she was in the. home when this all happened in the. basement. So, according to WSA9, the. interview was conducted by Carla. Clauddio Silva, a senior forensic.

interviewer with Safe Spot Children's. Advocacy Center at the Fairfax Police. Department. Lasted about 30 minutes. The. prosecutor in this case, Deputy. Commonwealth Attorney Eric Klingan, argued that this child is a victim of. the killing. Okay, so this interview. should come in. Quote, "It's an act of. abuse against her by virtue of what her. father did that morning." Defense. attorney John F. Barrel argued Banfield. never gave permission for his daughter. to be interviewed. And the judge. overseeing this case, Fairfax Circuit.

Court Chief Judge Penny Ascarate, who by. the way, many of you may remember as the. judge that oversaw the Johnny Depp Amber. Herd case. Okay. Sided with the defense, ruled the interview can't come in. Why? Let's talk about it. So, I am joined on. set by somebody you might recognize when. we were doing all of our Diddy coverage. and our live shows. Nationally. recognized criminal defense attorney. William Corman is with us. William, good. to see you. Thanks for taking the time. It's a pleasure. Um, first time here on. Sidebar on the set. Really appreciate. it. Okay. Why didn't the judge allow.

this interview to come in? There's a. very specific Virginia statute that. indicates that uh if a child is going to. be interviewed, regardless of the. context within which they are. interviewed, that a parent or guardian. has to give permission. So, it's. important to remember the timing of all. this. When the police first interviewed. the child in this particular case, they. had no idea what was going on and the. father never gave permission for the. child to be interviewed. So, the judge. is really construing the statute very.

very strictly to the letter, it seems. But here's the thing. Bansfield's also. facing child abuse and felony child. abuse cruelty charges. Isn't this per. isn't this child a victim? Doesn't this. child's forensic interview have a right. to be heard in this criminal case if. he's facing those charges? >> Sure. In theory, however, the timing and. the chronology of this is what matters. because that charge didn't come until. way after the fact. As a matter of fact, uh Banfield's already charged with. murder, and it almost seems as if the. government is realizing later on down.

the road, uh-oh, we need to figure out a. way to keep this interview in. And. that's when they charge him with child. abuse. So, in other words, the judge is. saying because she's not a direct victim. of this heinous crime, that interview is. not uh it's not relevant, it's. prejuditial. What is it? Is it the idea. of the way the child was interviewed, what the purpose of the interview was, that she wasn't being interviewed as a. victim of a crime, but being interviewed. as a uh I'm not really sure what. Again,

it's a little confusing. >> Sure. So again, what what I I I look at. it this way. Um at the time the. interview took place, nobody knew what. was going on. And common sense would. indicate that perhaps a parent or. guardian should give police uh. authorization to interview this child. I. mean, again, at the time of the. interview, the the the daughter was only. four years old, so she was very very. very young. No one knows what's going. on. No one knows who's going to be. charged with what. So, the statute uh. requires that a parent or guardian give.

authorization before the police go. interview minors. I mean, we can imagine. a slew of circumstances where we would. really want that. We don't want police. going into elementary school classrooms. and interviewing young children without. their parents or guardians knowing. Well, here's the thing, right? So, I. guess the idea is because the intent was. to gather information about the criminal. case, about the killings, as opposed to. this child being a victim of child. abuse, right? because you can interview. a child about child abuse. They're a. victim of of that kind of crime. I I get.

it, right? Like there has to be a limit. I in terms of what that child is able to. say to law enforcement without the. parents permission. At the same time, if. you were talking about a man who's. accused of killing this young girl's. mother, how is she not a victim? Victim. impact statements, criminal cases, victim impact statements. You're talking. about people who are representing what. the loss was like to them. But I feel. like she's a victim. So again, I'm I'm. not disagreeing with you at all, but. essentially what I'm saying is is the. statute is written very specifically and.

very directly and that's really what. we're dealing with here. >> And that's not in every state. >> Absolutely not. I mean, this this is an. um I don't want to say an unusual. statute, but this seems to be a statute. that the Virginia legislature passed. >> How much of a blow is this to the. prosecution's case? Can she this young. daughter still be called to the stand at. trial and testify? So, I I think she uh. she can certainly still be called to the. stand. And as much as as far as how much. of a blow is it to the government's. case, I don't think we know what she. said during the interview. So, without.

that information, we really don't know. And again, this was a young girl. This. was a four-year-old child. So, even if. the statement were allowed in, I think. that a a great defense attorney uh could. probably poke holes in that statement if. it was something that was contrary to. the interest of their client. But what. they should have done is shortly after. the interview, when they began to. realize what was going on, perhaps they. should have petitioned the court to have. a guardian appointed and then. interviewed the child. There were steps. along the way that it seems to me at. least they could have taken to remedy. the situation they found themselves in.

And it appears they didn't do any of. that. >> You mean have a guardian appointed and. the guardian give permission? Correct. That's something that could have been. done. >> I believe so. >> Okay. So, here's the thing. There would. be a difference between a forensic. interview conducted on the day of the. killings. I mean, witness recall, memory. versus testifying at a trial years. later, right? That's the value of that. forensic interview and why the. prosecution wanted it in so bad. >> Absolutely. But again, they could have. uh filed some petitions with the court.

when they were trying to figure out. exactly what was going on, who the. defendants were, what was really going. on, and then asked the court to um. appoint a guardian. That could have. happened much, much earlier. There's a. lot of interesting points about this. case besides the fact uh the daughter's. uh forensic interview apparently not. coming in. So, Judge Ascarott also. denied the defense's motion on Friday to. have the prosecutor in this case, prosecutor Klingan, removed from the. case and for the indictment to be. dropped against Banfield and arguing the.

argument was from the defense that. Klingan improperly guided the. codefendant in this case, Magaz. denied these motions. So, the indictment. stands and the prosecutor is going to. stay on the case. But I want to talk for. a second about her. She ended up. pleading guilty to manslaughter last. year and she reportedly provided a. profer and was interviewed by Cllingan. Now, William, first of all, Magaz, this. codefendant, this Opair, is it unusual.

to you that this would happen in the. sense that is it unusual that you have a. codefendant who would ultimately plead. guilty to a lesser charge, possibly. going to be a key witness at a at the. trial of Banfield? Is it is it's not. unusual to you that we're seeing a deal. like this or or pleading guilty like. this? >> Not at all. It happens all the time. It. happens all the time. So, uh you know, she's much younger. uh she probably is. going to say that she was coerced into. this by him. She obviously accepted.

responsibility. She took a plea. She. took a plea to a serious charge. Uh but. the fact that she in exchange for a. lesser a lesser charge is willing to. testify against her. >> I assume she is. I assume she is. >> I I I I think it's safe to assume if she. gave a profer that inevitably she's. going to testify. >> Here's where it gets confusing. Okay, so. her profer confirmed this catfishing. theory that I mentioned before. Confirmed the affair. confirm that she. helped to commit the killings. And. apparently or or participated or helped. in some way or facilitated in some way.

Now, apparently she even wrote in a. message to her mother while she's been. locked up in jail, quote, "I'm just so. upset and heartbroken for doing this to. Brendan. I love him and he loves me, too. I have no doubts, but it's the. right thing to do for you. I want to be. with you again." Interesting. It is. being reported that not everyone may be. on board with the catfishing theory of. the killings despite her profer because. apparently you have a police digital. forensics examiner who looked at. multiple devices and testified that.

Christine Banfield was actually looking. to have an affair with Joseph Ryan. So, there's a split on whether the messages. that Joseph was receiving on this social. networking platform, were they actually. from Christine or were they from the. defendant, Mr. Banfield? And according. to ABC News, Deputy Chief Patrick Brush, who oversaw the Fairfax County PD's. major crimes bureau at the time, testified that this digital examiner.

would quote, "Never be doing another. digital forensics case in your major. crimes bureau." Wow. Now, not. surprisingly, Banfield's attorney has. criticized the investigation in this. case, saying investigators moved forward. with a catfishing theory maybe too. quickly without really doing the proper. corroboration or having the proper. corroboration. Claim that Brush resigned. after his testimony. It. >> It's a fascinating case. >> What's going on? >> It's a fascinating case with so many.

twists and turns, it's almost hard to to. keep track of it all. But, you know, again, what we have here is what a gift. to the defense, right? we have a a. police officer or somebody who works for. the police department essentially. validating the defense for the. defendant. That happens so rarely. And. not only that, as a result of I don't. want to use the term whistleblowing, but. let's use it as a as as a result of. coming out and saying, "I don't agree. with the rest of my department, he's. then being told or the chief is saying. uh on the air that this guy's never. going to investigate another case.

again." Um it's fascinating. I mean, talk about twists and turns. >> Yeah. Because the catfishing theory is. important to the case to to establish. why Ryan was maybe allegedly lured there. and the motivation for the killings or. what if they wanted to stage it to look. like. Right? That's the idea. Staging it. to look like he came in and Banfield was. protecting his wife or trying to act in. self-defense. I mean that's the. allegation from the prosecutors. I will. tell you it's interesting. Uh Fox 5 DC. reported that Judge Ascarate has asked.

the prosecution and law enforcement to. explain some of this to explain why. apparently detectives and investigators. in the case have been transferred to. other assignments as this case has moved. forward. So she's entertaining this to a. certain degree. Yeah, it it has echoes. of of the Karen Reed case in. Massachusetts, right? Where we have. state troopers who are being called out. for the actions that they took during. the course of the case. It's the same. sort of scenario. We have law. enforcement who quite frankly are. abusing their positions uh and are.

jumping around unlawfully and are. damaging a defendant's right to a fair. trial. I think it's absolutely correct. for the judge to do that in this case. just like it was right for the judge to. do it in the Karen Reed matter. Why not. why wouldn't the judge say, "Okay, this. is it's a little bit of a mess. Uh why. not throw out the indictment? Why not. remove Klingan?" Did she just feel at. that point that's too extreme of a. remedy? >> I think dismissing a case is a pretty. extreme remedy for this sort of. misconduct. Um I I don't think it goes. that far. I think that again the judge. is trying to get to the bottom of it and.

you know perhaps heads will roll as a. result of it. But I think dismissing the. case overall is is goes too far. How. important is it to establish who sent. the message to Joe Ryan? In other words, how strong of a case do you think this. is against Banfield? Because you have. their apparent statements, what they. made at the time. Um, Joseph and. Christine were killed. Um, you know, self-defense or not, uh, prosecutor. Klingan seems to have the goods when it.

comes to the idea of the defendants. having an affair. Said, "Not only do you. have her account, uh, ML's account of. them having an affair, but he claims. they travel to New York City months. prior to the killings, took romantic. photos." So assuming they have travel. records, a digital trail, her testimony, is it is the case may, you know, rises. or falls with whether or not um the. prosecution can prove Banfield tried to. lure Ryan to that house. Well, who Ryan.

is and why Ryan is there is is huge. I. mean, that that that needs to be. answered. Um, I suppose you could. cleverly craft a way around it if for. some reason we don't find out who the. cat or whether or not there was. catfishing and who started that, but. that's really what this case is all. about. So, so who sent those messages, who got Ryan to come to the house is. very important. Uh, again, I think that. it is possible to weave a tail in. between the two, but if we find out that. Banfield is the one who set up this. whole catfishing scheme, case is over.

>> Let me ask you this. If they if the. judge says, "Listen, this is something. that I'm not going to dismiss the case. The prosecution can move forward with. their theory of catfishing. They have to. prove it to a jury." Can the defense. call all of these investigators, the. digital forensic examiner, have a kind. of a mini trial within the trial to talk. about what was going on in the police. department. You mentioned Karen Reed. Is. that something the defense would be. permitted to do to uh strike at the uh. the uh credibility of this.

investigation? >> To an extent, I'm sure they can. I mean, again, they're going to want to call. that digital forensics investigator that. that's going to be their their key. witness. Here is somebody who worked for. the police department who's basically. confirming our theory of everything. And. then from there, and what happened when. you, you know, told your colleagues. about your theory? Well, I was shunted. aside and told I' I'd never work in this. field again. all that would come out. Our understanding is when it comes to. Magaz, who again is probably going to be. a key witness at the trial, um faces up.

to 10 years on the manslaughter charge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think. that's what we saw. Um believes she's. set to be sentenced in December. What. could she be looking at? >> Well, again, I I think that if the if. the sentence is up to 10 years, she did. participate in in in a brutal killing um. in some way in in some fashion. I mean, she's admitted, my understanding is. she's admitted to to shooting Ryan. So, she did participate in in some way. I. mean, she she shot the guy. Uh, I don't. think there's any allegations that that.

she took part in the killing of of. Christine, but nevertheless, I think. that she's facing a significant. sentence. And again, in a situation like. this, um, a 10-year sentence, you know, some would argue that that's. significant, some would argue it's not. enough. But I if all she gets is a. 10-year sentence for her participation. in essentially a brutal double murder, um you know, I I I think that that's. what's going to happen. >> And his trial is scheduled for October. Faces life in prison uh if he's. convicted. So there's a lot of moving. parts, lot that could ultimately happen.

Um but we'll see. We'll keep a careful. eye on it. William Corman, uh thanks for. coming on here on Cyber and coming into. studio. Appreciate it. >> Thanks for having me. >> Good seeing you. >> You too. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should. get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll. speak to you next time. [Music].